If you were currently a Canadian, rather than a Foreign National (FN), based on what you have described I would be quite confident that this one incident would NOT trigger any inadmissibility issues (well, I am not entirely certain, largely because I am not sure what is in the official record, for a Canadian who is a Canadian PR rather than a citizen). But as I recall, you are not a Canadian (not a PR or citizen), but rather a FN, and I simply have not been following inadmissibility litigation involving FNs, so I have very little practical, real case context to help better understand what the law is and how it applies.
And I am not sure there is much case law published online relevant to this situation anyway.
My overall sense is that you are OK. While I am NOT sure about this, if the final disposition is NOT a conviction for either an indictable offence NOR a summary offence, that should mean that this does not make you inadmissible. This would be for sure if you were a PR. I am less certain since you are a FN (which, again, this part of this site is not about . . . this forum is about Canadians, and this particular part is mostly for those Canadians who are still only a PR and are applying for citizenship).
There are other aspects of your situation which are also well OUTSIDE the scope of what I follow and in part understand about admissibility. This severely limits what I can reasonably glean without doing a deep dive into research and analysis, which is beyond what I am prepared to do . . . and would be reluctant to do anyway,
since I really am NO expert and as difficult as it can be to research, digest, and understand stand alone provisions in a particular enactment (like IRPA), it is immensely more complex and difficult when multiple enactments are involved, let alone provincial law.
The fact that lawyers have differing, inconsistent views, is a clue: there is some uncertainty.
That said, what is of record in the courts is what matters most, what controls. And if there is no conviction for an "
offence" as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code, the odds heavily favour NO admissibility issue.
Analyzing the Effect of the Contraventions Act:
Caveat: I have NO background in assessing how the provisions of the Contraventions Act are applied or interpreted. As best I can discern, the vast majority of so-called "
contraventions" are what other jurisdictions (like U.S. states for example) might label or categorize as "
infractions" or "
violations," which generally mean provisions that prescribe unlawful actions that are not crimes as such. The simplest version, and the most common that most people are acquainted with, is a parking violation.
As best I can discern, if something is charged as a contravention, there is no charge or conviction for an "
offence."
Best I can sort things out, there are those contraventions designated by the Governor General, listed in the Contravention Regulations here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-313/index.html BUT which do NOT include any provisions which would allow ticketing for driving while impaired as prescribed as a hybrid offence in the Criminal Code. And those contraventions which result from the regulations governing the application of provincial laws to contraventions, which in turn depend on particular provisions of law in the respective provinces. I do NOT understand how the latter works.
So, still, again, as best I can discern, if something is charged as a contravention, be that as listed in the applicable federal regulations, or as prescribed by provincial law, there is no charge or conviction for an "
offence."
The only thing that throws me off some is that contraventions (infractions or violations not constituting crimes) do not generally encompass illegal activity that would typically be considered on a par with serious offences that could result in imprisonment for more than two years, let alone ten. I am not familiar with Alberta provincial law at all, so I am not acquainted with what alcohol related driving violations it prescribes as a contravention.
My sense is that the substantive content of statutory provisions regarding contraventions is more complicated than what is needed to understand what constitutes inadmissibility for either PRs or FNs. For acts committed IN Canada, it should be fairly clear whether an offence under the Criminal Code is charged, and even more clear once there is a conviction. Once there is a final disposition, in particular, it should be clear whether there is a conviction for an "
offence" as defined in the Criminal Code (well, there are some prescribed by other enactments, but there should be no ambiguity or confusion regarding those), and precisely what that particular offence is.
So, for example, if there is a formal charge filed in court, and particularly if there is a conviction in a court, it should be clear that it is an offence under the Criminal Code, and which offence it is. If it is hybrid offence, it makes a FN inadmissible for criminality. If as a hybrid offence that, if prosecuted by indictment it could be punished by ten years of imprisonment, it makes a FN or a PR, that is either, inadmissible for serious criminality.
So, for example, which appears to be your example, if there is NO conviction for an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code, there is no admissibility issue.
That said, to be clear if this occurred in another country, this is where there is a big difference between Canadian PRs and FNs. Just committing the act of driving with a BAC .08 or more outside Canada, even if NOT convicted, can be grounds for deeming a FN inadmissible in Canada. My sense is that absent a conviction it is not likely that Canadian authorities would do that, determine the FN to be inadmissible, but they could.
More Re Lawyers' Uncertainty or Contrary Opinions:
Yeah, lawyers do not necessarily get things right. But they are the experts. Like doctors. Sometimes it is a good idea to get a second opinion. And even then, that can cause more uncertainty if not confusion. More than a quarter century ago, in another country, I was involved in some complicated litigation and needed a lawyer who really knew their stuff in regards to an issue I knew many lawyers did not understand well, many outright having a wrong view. So it took some serious homework and shopping around to find the lawyer I needed, and it cost more than most of the others. I am a bit fortunate in that I do have an extensive, in-depth and professional background in jurisprudence, so if I am willing, and have the sources and the time, I can do enough homework to better select a lawyer, and help the lawyer help me . . . which is NOT to say I could do without a lawyer. But, yeah, sometimes it can be hard work just finding a good lawyer.
Caution Re Researching Law:
There are some key tricks in understanding the application of law that are necessary at a minimum:
-- reading and OBJECTIVELY analyzing the verbatim law itself
-- extensive research into ACTUAL cases, the in-fact, practical application of law to actual people as reported in official sources and reliable anecdotal sources
-- recognizing the scope of what is not known, which is difficult since we do not know what we do not know; but in trying to know the law and how it works there are serious and deep pitfalls, and being aware of this, as best one can, is absolutely crucial
Which takes time, YEARS. Which is why it would be unproductive for me to just dive into researching FN inadmissibility issues. I just plain have not been engaged in that for years. In contrast, I have been following inadmissibility issues for PRs for well over a decade. And I will readily acknowledge that as much as I have been following PR inadmissibility, I am NOWHERE NEAR an expert, NOT close, NOT anywhere near close. To be an expert in this would require being actually engaged in such proceedings, involving personal interaction with those involved, including IRCC and CBSA representatives, Minister's counsel, and IAD panels.
